USA riots

[bukka]

So I am going to assume the answer to all the questions are yes..
Let me get this straight...bukka....
You do not think that the black lives matter is not racist?....Yes
You think that lawful protesting includes attacking law enforcement officers, looting destruction of property, and murder?.....Yes
Do you think that because you own a gun that that make you responsible in any way for what others do with guns?....Yes

If you think the constitutional right to assembly and protest includes attacking law enforcement officers, looting destruction of property, and murder....you are a sick person.

No, just because a person owns a gun that does not mean he is responsible for the actions of every lunatic with a gun.

And although the Black Lives Matter movement is constitutional, it is horribly ignorant and racist and if the whites turned that around on the blacks they would protest that. If the whites had rallies and protest showing a white power symbol it would be considered as in sighting violence.

You can write a book on it but you are wrong on all counts.

All this has been argued and answered, Grailhunter, in my summary argumentation: I have taken the positions of these two posters to their simple logical conclusion. This is done to show the falsity of their positions. At bottom, both of these posters are still defaming lawful citizens of the BLM, equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies to violate laws. This position of these posters has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters exercising their constitutional right of assembly to seek redress of grievances, particularly that of police murder and voter suppression.

So I asked these posters, do you hold all gun owners responsible for the criminals that infiltrate their ranks to possess and use firearms to commit crimes such as robbery or murder? Are you sure about this? Do you want your guns taken away from you by people complaining that you are criminals or sympathetic to criminals? This is another application of the logic these posters are using. I have continued to ask, why you can't be morally consistent? Again, the logical conclusion of your arguments so far, is that you want to take away the Bill of Rights from Americans.

Are you angry that the Bill of Rights are in the hands of a race different from yourself? I have to wonder that. It's getting more and more like it is. I don't know why you hate the Bill of Rights except that it may be cherished by people you don't like.

I have always asserted that BLM was not a specifically Christian organization. I do not believe that civil rights be based upon religious belief; and, in state religions of any type. I don't think that churches should be dependent upon governmental tax dollars with the ministers being appointed or confirmed to their office by the government. I think that is something that is set up for anti-christ.

Why can't you support the Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule? By not answering this, people will think that you're not arguing in good faith. Of course, if you did, then you would have to admit that lawful protesters do have the right of assembly to protest grievances. Since you do not, this means, ultimately, that if criminals use guns in the commission of a crime, it would alright that the right to keep and bear arms is wrong and the guns should be taken away from American citizens.

Again, why can't you support the Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule? As a Christian, I think you should be supporting both.

 

[Grailhunter]

All this has been argued and answered, Grailhunter, in my summary argumentation: I have taken the positions of these two posters to their simple logical conclusion. This is done to show the falsity of their positions. At bottom, both of these posters are still defaming lawful citizens of the BLM, equating them with the criminals that have infiltrated their assemblies to violate laws. This position of these posters has not changed. I cannot accept the defamation of lawful protesters exercising their constitutional right of assembly to seek redress of grievances, particularly that of police murder and voter suppression.

So I asked these posters, do you hold all gun owners responsible for the criminals that infiltrate their ranks to possess and use firearms to commit crimes such as robbery or murder? Are you sure about this? Do you want your guns taken away from you by people complaining that you are criminals or sympathetic to criminals? This is another application of the logic these posters are using. I have continued to ask, why you can't be morally consistent? Again, the logical conclusion of your arguments so far, is that you want to take away the Bill of Rights from Americans.

Are you angry that the Bill of Rights are in the hands of a race different from yourself? I have to wonder that. It's getting more and more like it is. I don't know why you hate the Bill of Rights except that it may be cherished by people you don't like.

I have always asserted that BLM was not a specifically Christian organization. I do not believe that civil rights be based upon religious belief; and, in state religions of any type. I don't think that churches should be dependent upon governmental tax dollars with the ministers being appointed or confirmed to their office by the government. I think that is something that is set up for anti-christ.

Why can't you support the Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule? By not answering this, people will think that you're not arguing in good faith. Of course, if you did, then you would have to admit that lawful protesters do have the right of assembly to protest grievances. Since you do not, this means, ultimately, that if criminals use guns in the commission of a crime, it would alright that the right to keep and bear arms is wrong and the guns should be taken away from American citizens.

Again, why can't you support the Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule? As a Christian, I think you should be supporting both.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to everyone....
What I am saying...... is that what you are are saying,,,,when put in action is rude, violent, ignorant, and raciest.
So you have your opinion and I have mine....no need for further discussion.

 

[Renniks]

The OP is about the BLM, Renniks.

I confess that I don't understand you and marks. If you had simply conceded the argument and stated your support for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and stated your support for the Golden Rule of Jesus, we could have went on and effectively agreed on some of the minor questions, agreeing to disagree on some other questions, and ending this thread pages ago. By not supporting the Bill of Rights, and the Golden Rule, you ruined the support you may have had for your point of view.

I request you to think about this.

I'm a big supporter of both the Bill of Rights and the golden rule so I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[bukka]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to everyone....
What I am saying...... is that what you are are saying,,,,when put in action is rude, violent, ignorant, and raciest.
So you have your opinion and I have mine....no need for further discussion.

A protest, Grailhunter, does involve moral outrage. Put your feet in the shoes of the protesters and think what they may be feeling. That's all I ask. The protesters cannot accept police murder and voter suppression. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Renniks]

Of course, if you did, then you would have to admit that lawful protesters do have the right of assembly to protest grievances.

And again with the same old straw man.
Show me anywhere on this whole thread, where anyone is against peaceful protest.

 

[bukka]

I'm a big supporter of both the Bill of Rights and the golden rule so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Then Renniks, I'm puzzled about your lack of support for the lawful BLM citizens exercising their right to assembly to seek redress for grievances regarding police murder and voter suppression. If we can agree to that, and that criminals had infiltrated their ranks to commit crimes, I think we can get somewhere. But equating all BLM protesters as criminal is simply false, dangerous to democracy and to the Bill of Rights and must be rejected. We have to affirm the Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule.

 

[Grailhunter]

A protest, Grailhunter, does involve moral outrage. Put your feet in the shoes of the protesters and think what they may be feeling. That's all I ask. The protesters cannot accept police murder and voter suppression. We can agree to disagree.

There is a racial problem in the America and the world. Some of the blacks have a chip on their shoulder, the racial divide between the black and whites will never be resolved as long as the blacks keep trying to justify what they do and the whites stay in their politically correct stand off. Until it gets down to the debate of being responsible for your own actions and that humans are humans, it will never be resolved....your rhetoric perpetuate the problem....so if you like the status of blacks in society and what is going on....you got the plan. March off smartly.

 

[bukka]

And again with the same old straw man.
Show me anywhere on this whole thread, where anyone is against peaceful protest.

You simply didn't admit to the existence of lawful BLM protesters, Renniks. You classed the BLM as some kind of terrorist organization. That's what got me determined to stop that defamation. That you accept that lawful BLM protesters exit exercising their right of assembly, I think is heartening.

 

[bukka]

There is a racial problem in the America and the world. Some of the blacks have a chip on their shoulder, the racial divide between the black and whites will never be resolved as long as the blacks keep trying to justify what they do and the whites stay in their politically correct stand off. Until it gets down to the debate of being responsible for your own actions and that humans are humans, it will never be resolved....your rhetoric perpetuate the problem....so if you like the status of blacks in society and what is going on....you got the plan. March off smartly.

We can agree to disagree, Grailhunter. The BLM will continue to support the Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule in human relations.

 

[Grailhunter]

We can agree to disagree, Grailhunter. The BLM will continue to support the Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule in human relations.

Most American support the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule. Logic is a difficult concept for many, if you keep on do'en what you been do'en you are going to keep on get'en what you been get'en. lol Or in other words, doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result....is the definition of insanity. Have a blast!

 

[marks]

the people in the suburbs say, "Oh no. It was okay as long the cities were in turmoil,

You know I live in the suburbs . . . did I say it was OK to burn LA?

 

[Renniks]

Then Renniks, I'm puzzled about your lack of support for the lawful BLM citizens exercising their right to assembly to seek redress for grievances regarding police murder and voter suppression. If we can agree to that, and that criminals had infiltrated their ranks to commit crimes, I think we can get somewhere. But equating all BLM protesters as criminal is simply false, dangerous to democracy and to the Bill of Rights and must be rejected. We have to affirm the Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule.

When did I say peaceful protesters are criminals? I never did. So get over using this lame argument.

 

[Renniks]

We can agree to disagree, Grailhunter. The BLM will continue to support the Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule in human relations.

BLM is inherently racist. White power and black power are two sides of the same coin. No group of people is guaranteed any special privileges under our constitution.

 

[bukka]

Most American support the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule. Logic is a difficult concept for many, if you keep on do'en what you been do'en you are going to keep on get'en what you been get'en. lol Or in other words, doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result....is the definition of insanity. Have a blast!

Why not say it now and support the lawful BLM citizens their right of assembly? Why not support the Golden Rule in this? If something has wronged you, wouldn't you want to lawfully exercise your right of assembly to protest it? Wouldn't you want to be treated in a way that accepts that one should treat others as they wish to be treated? I think the answers are simple in this.

I guess we agree to disagree.

 

[Grailhunter]

Why not say it now and support the lawful BLM citizens their right of assembly? Why not support the Golden Rule in this? If something has wronged you, wouldn't you want to lawfully exercise your right of assembly to protest it? Wouldn't you want to be treated in a way that accepts that one should treat others as they wish to be treated? I think the answers are simple in this.

I guess we agree to disagree.

I am done

 

[marks]

Renniks, and also marks, have both denied being racists, Giuliano, but that is a good question.

Um . . . I didn't know I was being accused.

Love your word choices! Very slanted! But we're seeing a lot of that these days.

But if you really want to have a dialog, go back and answer some of my questions to you that you routinely skip over as they do not fit your narrative. Your narrative.

 

[bukka]

When did I say peaceful protesters are criminals? I never did. So get over using this lame argument.

BLM is inherently racist. White power and black power are two sides of the same coin. No group of people is guaranteed any special privileges under our constitution.

The Bill of Rights and Golden Rule does not confer special rights, only that the same rights be accorded to all. BLM is only asserting those same rights. As I had asked Grailhunter: Why not say it now and support the lawful BLM citizens their right of assembly? Why not support the Golden Rule in this? If something has wronged you, wouldn't you want to lawfully exercise your right of assembly to protest it? Wouldn't you want to be treated in a way that accepts that one should treat others as they wish to be treated? I think the answers are simple in this.

 

[marks]

On April 19, 1989 a white woman was gang raped….The Central Park jogger case was a criminal case based on the assault and gang rape of Trisha Meili, a 28-year-old white woman in Central Park, New York. Up to a dozen rapists participated and she was not the only one that was raped that night, three of the victims were raped by single assailants and they were black or Latino. Meili was so badly sodomized and injured that she was in a coma for 12 days. This was a raping rage. The participants in this rape rage were not all black and nor were their victims all white…does that make it better? Does that justify it?

When asked why so many were rampaging through the park raping women that night, they said it was a “wilding” something that white people would not understand. Now this happened a long time ago, but that is not my point….”the wilding”…is my point. The behavior that they expect us to understand and accept as normal….that it is good and it is in their nature and therefore they should not be punished for it. So there is no reason for police, let them do as they wish. It is considered prejudice not to accept them and their natural behavior. This is what it is all about. Too long have people looked down on them for murdering, raping, and stealing, looting, drug trafficking, and rioting. This should be considered good and if you do not agree, you are prejudice. “They did it because they were where upset!”

Defunding the police departments or getting rid of the police? I think the vast…vast…majority of blacks would oppose this…why? Most of the blacks….black families are fine people…the vast majority. Black families…White families….Latino families, it does not matter…most are hard working, tax paying citizens that do not want their families left at the mercy of the scum of the earth, it does not matter what color they are! And it is the scum of the earth that is pushing this. (Not to mention the various subversive groups that are out to fan the fire of chaos and anarchy and the extreme leftists in congress. Our American Communist Party)

At this point with all the negatively toward law enforcement I would not blame the police if they left the cities to burn. And without the police the firemen could not safely answer any calls. “Burn it all down!” was the battle cry of the blacks in Ferguson, Mo. (Another case of a black criminal resisting arrest who thought he would not get shot attacking an officer if he had his hands up.) Go talk to some of the blacks that have families and homes there and see if they appreciated that. That town is still yet to recover. Obama’s explanation, “They were just upset.” If we do not accept what they do when “they get upset” we are prejudice. What do you bet if the home owners and families, white or black, did anything to these people, that they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The criminals, the rioters, the arsonists, the looters, the murderers, given a free pass. And you are prejudice if you say they should have been prosecuted. Coddle the criminals, protecting the criminals is becoming the rule of law.

What these protesters and rioters are against….they are against morals and good people. Good black people are just as concerned about this trend as anybody else. They do not want people like Floyd invading their homes, stealing what they have worked for and raping their families. They do not want people like Floyd pushing drugs on their kids. They do not want to live in a town where their families could be attacked going to Walmart or the grocery store, or shot down in their own front yard. These rioters are made up of all races, who knows what little girl might attract their attention.

If this keeps up most of the major stores, grocery stores, pharmacies, and corporations could move out of town. What would be left? No police, few jobs, no place to buy food, or get prescriptions filled. What do you think is going to happen? These are people that have day dreams of drugs, chaos, and anarchy, where it is the survival of the fittest and ruled by gangs.

The last thing we need to do is give in to these people, or give them anything. No reason to coddle the rioters, no reason to coddle criminals, no reason to subscribe to this subculture of gang rules.

I'd give this more likes if I could.

These are racists, those who would try to make everyone believe the problem is "systemic racism". Utter nonsense intended to deceive, and @bukka is here on their behalf.

No. We should not coddle criminals, no matter how much they claim they have the 'right' to, like you've illustrated, just do whatever lawlessness they want.

And this cry to get rid of the police! LOL!

 

[bukka]

Um . . . I didn't know I was being accused.

Love your word choices! Very slanted! But we're seeing a lot of that these days.

But if you really want to have a dialog, go back and answer some of my questions to you that you routinely skip over as they do not fit your narrative. Your narrative.

I don't want a narrative, Renniks. I want your support for the Bill of Rights and the Golden Rule. Once we have that, we can go onto other questions. Claiming BLM as simply terrorist or criminals defames those citizens exercising their right to assemble to seek redress of grievances.

 

[marks]

Why not say it now and support the lawful BLM citizens their right of assembly?

Over and over and over and over . . .

Of course they have the right of assembly like everyone else. SO you see their rights are not being deprived. But why do you single out this hateful and racist group who supports destruction and violence against people who have never done them any harm?

Kinda answers itself!